From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755651AbaAGIBd (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 03:01:33 -0500 Received: from mail-pd0-f171.google.com ([209.85.192.171]:46193 "EHLO mail-pd0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752162AbaAGIBb (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 03:01:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 00:01:27 -0800 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Xiubo Li Cc: thierry.reding@gmail.com, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] pwm: core: Use devm_kzalloc instead of kzalloc Message-ID: <20140107080127.GD20074@core.coreip.homeip.net> References: <1389074700-1825-1-git-send-email-Li.Xiubo@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1389074700-1825-1-git-send-email-Li.Xiubo@freescale.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Xiubo, On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 02:05:00PM +0800, Xiubo Li wrote: > Use devm_kzalloc instead of kzalloc to free automatically and make > the cleanup paths simpler and the code slightly shorter. > > Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li > --- > drivers/pwm/core.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c > index 2ca9504..74c9f9a 100644 > --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c > +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c > @@ -80,7 +80,6 @@ static void free_pwms(struct pwm_chip *chip) > > bitmap_clear(allocated_pwms, chip->base, chip->npwm); > > - kfree(chip->pwms); > chip->pwms = NULL; > } > > @@ -245,7 +244,9 @@ int pwmchip_add(struct pwm_chip *chip) > if (ret < 0) > goto out; > > - chip->pwms = kzalloc(chip->npwm * sizeof(*pwm), GFP_KERNEL); > + chip->pwms = devm_kzalloc(chip->dev, > + chip->npwm * sizeof(*pwm), > + GFP_KERNEL); > if (!chip->pwms) { > ret = -ENOMEM; > goto out; Is it guaranteed that pwmchip_add()/free_pwms() will only be called in probe() and remove() paths? It is probably safe assumption, but maybe it should be mentioned in comments now that we definitely have this restricion. Thanks. -- Dmitry